thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
2 edits | DRM makes paying for something worthless.
If I buy a tape, it doesn't tell me what kind of VCR I can use, or wheather or not I can copy it. Same with a DVD. And you pay for these things.
Why would you pay for DRMed, low bitrate, low quality stuff when you can get it for free without copy protection, in higher quality?
The RIAA combatted recording off the radio with a tape with CDs, which, once recording/mix/mastering engineers got the hang of, beat the crap out of recording off the radio. Radio is dynamically compressed as it is so it's IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME IF YOU DIDN'T NOTICE WITH POPULAR MUSIC, and consumer level tape recording quality didn't make it better.
That's what should be done now. Take a step forward and make people want to buy your product. Beat the new thing, with a newer and better thing.If you hear the normal Pink Floyd DSOTM CD on a nice hifi, then the SACD, the difference is amazing. Same for the DVD-A of Joe Satriani - Engines of Creation.
But no, they're taking a step back. They'd rather restrict the new thing and put their worse service in place. You're paying the same amount of money to get a limited, restricted, low quality copy of the original.
Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people"  It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Thasp, maybe I'm not following very well, but your whole post is criticizing DRM-based services, and this article has the BT chief saying he's against DRM and wants to go ad-supported instead.
I agree most of the pay-for-download services are bad, but what Ashwin Navin describes is different. BT handles big files well so there's no reason they can't be good quality, and with no DRM on them, and good prices, I might subscribe.
The question in this case is whether the copyright owners will get a clue and admit that potential customers dislike DRM, and license the TV shows or whatever to the service. |
|
snipper_cr
join:2002-01-22
Wheaton, IL
clubs: | reply to thender2
Actually, even with VHS, Macrovision's exploit of autogain makes copying pretty difficult.
--
Serenity Day - June 23rd 2006. You Can't Stop the Signal |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to thender2
said by thender2  :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights.
Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes.
If they could charge you for the image reflected on your corneas, then they would. The day is coming if more consumers don't wake up and vote with their wallets instead of bending over and taking everything these corps buy off the politicians to ensure the fleecing.
--
Choose Net Neutrality or Lose It
21st C TechnoBarons.
Why Care About Media?
IANYL:TINLA |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by major marco :said by thender2 :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights. Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes. Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. |
|
Fronkman
Macs Do It Better
Premium
join:2003-06-23
Saint Louis, MO
| said by BF69 :Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too... that isn't really the point being argued. i would certainly not expect the record company to give me MP3 versions of albums i owned in CD or cassette format.
what is being argued is that music you buy TODAY is severely restricted in what you can do with it. to use your analogy: say in the '80s you bought the latest bon jovi cassette tape. if there was the same kind of DRM back then as we have now, you would have to buy one tape for the car, one tape for the walkman, one tape for the hifi, one for the boombox...etc.
the record companies want to tell me that i cant burn an MP3 I just paid for to a CD so that i can listen to it in my car. (i know itunes allows this, but the restrictions keep getting tighter and I am sure the record companies want to completely remove that burn button) they want all music platforms to be constantly connected to the internet and sending data back to their computers to make sure i am not doing something fishy with the file.
in other words, the record company assumes that any song you burn to play outside of their "monitored media player" is going to be copied and distributed to as many people as possible (ie pirated). talk about an anti-consumer attitude. this is further exemplified by the movie studios that put that "stealing movies is a crime" bit at the begining of the DVD. I just PAID $15 for the stinking movie, why do i have to be accused of a piracy when I obviously just bought the disc?
in regard to those who say "vote with your wallet," this is very hard. unless you are totally dedicated to only supporting truly independent bands (those without a recording contract) or you don't mind pirating every single piece of media you consume, you will soon be stuck only listening to public domain recordings of sousa marches and reading shakespeare.
--
Everyone should own a G4 cube or an iBook or the Mac mini! |
|
major marco
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA
clubs:
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. Fronkman underscored my argument effectively but I wanted to add that you're comparing apples to oranges with yours. Most consumers don't expect freebie music for vinyl, tape cassette, DAT, mp3, etc. That is a specious argument and you aren't playing Devil's Advocate. You're just being ridiculously argumentative. I'd be careful if I were you because you might be mistaken for a RIAA shill.
--
Choose Net Neutrality or Lose It
21st C TechnoBarons.
Why Care About Media?
IANYL:TINLA |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| reply to BF69
said by BF69 :said by major marco :said by thender2 :Sometimes I think the whole plan is to make a service so horrible that no one wants to use it, so the excuse "oh we tried to create a legal digital download service, but it just didn't work - back to CDs, DVDs, and suing people" It's the only way I can understand why media companies would shoot themselves in the foot with each new idea. They're not shooting themselves in the foot. DRM enables the vast distribution monopoly as currently enjoyed by the likes of diaRIAA and MPAA, etc. The idea is to shaft the consumer and make him pay for each of his Fair Use Rights. Want to listen to an audio book on your mp3 player? Cha ching. Want to listen to the SAME book on your desktop? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD player? Cha ching. The same file burned to a CD on a CD ROM in your computer? Cha ching. The same file on your car stereo? Cha ching. On your A/V equipment in the entertainment center at home. Cha ching. And on and on it goes. Just to play Devil's Advocate. Say someone back in the 60's bought a Rolling Stones album. In the 70's when the 8 track of that same album came out he should have gotten that for free, then when the early 80's when cassette came out he should have gotten that for free too. Then when the CD came out in the late 80's that of course should be free too. I mean it's all the same music and they've already paid for it once. Please explain how this is different? Same thing goes for VHS/DVD/HD-DVD. a) The medium itself costs money.
b) Records vs tape vs CDs, they all took steps forward in certain areas of quality, you paid for that too.
If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN
| said by thender2 :If I bought a tape I wouldn't expect a free CD, but I would expect that I can play it in any tape player I want, whenever I want, and that I can back it up if I choose to. That was my arguement. Fair enough and not to sound like a RIAA shill as someone else accuses me of, when Itunes only sells songs that can only be played on Ipods unless you do a bunch of other onerous crap first, well that's not the RIAA's fault that's totally on Apple. I can buy a song from Napster or Yahoo Music and it will in fact work on MANY MANY various MP3 players. Not Ipods, but that's Apples fault again.
The problem is the record companies wants DRM because of all the idiots that download the stuff illegally on the net. And I can see the point where people don't want DRM on thier stuff. I don't want it. If illegal downloading was never a problem I'm sure DRM wouldn't even exist.
So the record companies aren't going to stop DRM until people stop illegally downloading songs and pay for music and people aren't going to pay for music until the record companies abandon DRM. Both sides have thier heads up their butts and both deserve to burn in hell for making life hard for the rest of us who are honest hard working people.
The record companies also need a different price model since a song from the 70's shouldn't cost the same as a new release. A new song probally could be priced slighly higher and older songs be priced lower. There are probally hundreds of thousands of songs that hardly ever get bought because people deem 99¢ too much for a 30 year old song, but people would be more than willing to pay say 29¢-49¢ for it. 10,000 X 29¢ is more than 1000 X 99¢, but what do I know? |
|
thender2
Glamour Profession
Premium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
| Judging music price by age is bullcrap. 50 Cent's latest shit vs Jeff Beck's Diamond Dust/Led Zeppelin's Achilles Last Stand/Pink Floyd's Dogs, and 50 cent would be worth more?
How about selling FLAC files that are lossless, without DRM, that can be converted to a format your player can play? This way, instead of downgrading from CD quality to compressed to CD quality, we can be back where we started 20 years ago - with CD quality and fair use rights relatively intact. And we're not even at that.
DRM doesn't stop stuff from going online. Why would I want to download someone's 128k WMA shit(assuming the DRM were cracked) when I can download an --alt-preset standard MP3 that'll sound better and work on more devices, or a FLAC/APE lossless copy?
It's not even like they're "protecting" something worth downloading.
--
The Problem With Music.
Our Rationale
Time to rewrite the DMCA. |
|
